Q&A: Abandonment to Chance
Abandonment to Chance
Question
I wanted to ask you whether the view brought by the medieval authorities (Rishonim) and later authorities (Acharonim), that there is a punishment from the Creator of being abandoned to chance, so that one may die or may not die with no supervision at all, like the fish of the sea—does that make philosophical or moral sense?
I know your view is that in general everyone is left to chance anyway, but I’m asking about a period when, according to their view, the Creator did intervene. How could philosophers with moral sensitivity express such a view about the Creator? (Please don’t answer me by saying to ask them; besides that being problematic, I’m simply asking you, as a serious philosopher, what your insight into this is.)
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. As a punishment, He leaves them to themselves without His supervision.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t see a problem. Whatever happens to him will happen. The Holy One, blessed be He, has severed the connection with him.
I don’t understand how it seems acceptable to you that the Creator wouldn’t care
that there be justice here. Shouldn’t there be justice among wicked people too, according to their different levels,
with the size of the punishment matching the level of wickedness?
Why don’t you see a problem in this?
After all, in an earthly kingdom you would certainly see a problem in this—that there not be justice in it—and if so, all the more so with the Creator.
And by the way, even if for some reason you answer me that even in an earthly kingdom you don’t see a problem if they act this way,
then please explain:
after all, just as among the righteous one should give reward according to deeds, so too among the wicked the recompense should be according to deeds, no?
Thanks.
You too have cast me over to chance.
Am I not righteous?
The response is the same response. Measure for measure: you didn’t relate to Me, so I don’t relate to you. Now whatever happens to you will happen on the basis of the laws of nature. The divine response is one thing; the result he suffers does not come from the Holy One, blessed be He, but from nature.
Like someone who didn’t pay taxes and therefore won’t receive protection from the army. What happens to him depends on the terrorists. An earthly kingdom acts this way too.
Since I don’t see a difficulty here, and since I don’t explain views that aren’t mine and have no real basis, from here on I too will leave you to chance.
Where did I not relate to your words?
Again, no one sees what you’re saying—that someone who doesn’t pay taxes, the army doesn’t protect him.
Maybe in countries that don’t have human rights,
but even there not, if they want to preserve deterrence—that is, so that even someone who murdered one person won’t want to murder more, because for one murder he’ll get life imprisonment, and for two he’ll get two.
I hope I made myself understood, after I was cast over to chance with no wrong in my hands, and especially since you said this isn’t even your own view.
(When Adar enters…)
“Where did I not relate to your words?”
Yodei, you’re a legend.
“And there are those swept away without justice.”
Ah, now I noticed that it’s some other star who popped up right after the Sabbath ended, and not the local authority, who has a crazy burden on him of endless comments, for which one can judge him favorably, according to the principle of charity.
So you—show me where Rabbi Michael Abraham answered, and I’ll thank you.
An amusing misunderstanding in good faith.
When Michi wrote, “you didn’t relate to Me, so I don’t relate to you,” he meant that these are the words of the Holy One, blessed be He—measure for measure. He wasn’t referring to you at all.
The last paragraph, however, really was directed at you quite specifically.
Ah, okay, thanks, I understand. Really my mistake. I hope I gave a few more followers a laugh in honor of the month of Adar.
I’d definitely be happy for you to be by my side for all my questions.
But on the substance of the matter—understand that this still did not answer my question at all, because such a response by the Creator, aside from childish pettiness and vengefulness and cruelty, contains no fairness, no morality, and no philosophical logic. It offers no deterrence for the minor wicked person not to become greatly wicked, because in any case he’ll already be cast over to chance from the moment he is only a minor wicked person. And as stated, it contains no justice between a small wicked person and a great one.
I might perhaps understand this in some weak earthly kingdom whose hands are tied when it comes to dealing with all the wicked and so it throws them all into one general trash bin, and peace upon Israel. But of course that cannot be said about the Creator of the world—is His hand too short to save? Is the Lord’s hand shortened? Does God pervert justice? “No faithfulness and a god of injustice” (the verse was intentionally distorted).
And also, where exactly did Rabbi Michi ever see this kingdom where someone who doesn’t pay taxes isn’t protected by the army, other than the heavenly kingdom of philosophers?
In a state where the citizens don’t pay taxes, there won’t be money for the army to buy weapons to protect them, and what happens to them will depend on the terrorists. That isn’t a punishment from the government for not paying taxes. That’s just how it is.
Being cast over to chance will not necessarily bring disaster on the wicked person, and exact individual providence over the righteous will not necessarily bring him a life of happiness and tranquility. “And around Him it storms mightily” — this teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, is exacting with those around Him to a hairsbreadth.
And if I’ve erred, let my response be held responsible.
Amen, may it be His will.
“But shall not the Judge of all the earth do justice,” “a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He.”
It could be that a minor wicked person who is cast over to chance will suffer far more damage than a major wicked person who is cast over to chance. Where is the justice? What is the logic here?